Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Hakkenshi" data-source="post: 325418" data-attributes="member: 5457">LOL <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f600.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":D" title="Big grin    :D"  data-smilie="8"data-shortname=":D" />Give me Metallica over KISS any day! <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" />I think Kilmore has made a great point, though. What I don't understand is people complaining that the art is too spiky and edgy. If you think in the context of the worlds of D&D, edgy and spiky armour makes much more sense than the ornate and impossible-to-wear armour that some artists drew for 2e.Lockwood, for one, seems dedicated to drawing functional and useful armour, which I really like. You can actually see where all the straps connect. Whereas some 2e art was like anime fantasy art: all looks and no logic.That, and the Dragons have never looked better (except maybe the Gold, but I still like it).But Keith Parkinson is definitely cool, despite his Everquest stuff.</blockquote>